Is a Formal Ceremony Needed to Convert to Hinduism? Madras HC Says No, Restores Divorce Plea

The Madras High Court recently observed that conversion to Hinduism does not require any formal ceremony and can be established through clear and consistent conduct, setting aside an Ambattur Sub Court order that had dismissed a mutual-consent divorce petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that the wife was Muslim. Court directed the Sub Court to restore the petition and decide it on merits within four weeks.

The bench of Justice P.B. Balaji made it clear that once a person has shown a bona fide intention to accept the Hindu faith and demonstrates that intention through their conduct, the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) applies.

Court emphasised that the woman in this case had participated in a Hindu marriage ceremony, invoked the HMA for divorce, and consistently asserted that she professed Hinduism at the time of marriage. It said the Sub Court had no basis to reject the petition merely because her name continued to reflect her birth religion.

The couple had approached the High Court after the Sub Court dismissed their Section 13B petition as not maintainable by relying on Section 2 of the HMA. The court below held that the Act does not apply to Muslims and therefore the plea could not proceed.

Before the High Court, the couple submitted that although the wife was born to Muslim parents, she had been raised in Hindu traditions by her maternal grandmother and had lived as a Hindu throughout her life. They argued that their marriage was solemnised on 21 August 2020 at Arulmighu Balamurugan Temple, Mogappair West, Chennai, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. They produced photographs of the ceremony and a certificate from the temple confirming the wedding.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Perumal Nadar vs Ponnuswami (AIR 1971 2352), the petitioners argued that a person may become Hindu through genuine intention and conduct, and that no purification ritual or formal conversion procedure is required. The High Court accepted this position and quoted the Supreme Court view that “no formal ceremony” is necessary to effectuate conversion. It held that the wife's actions constituted “express conduct” demonstrating that she professed Hinduism.

Court observed that the petitioners had voluntarily invoked the Hindu Marriage Act and had solemnised their marriage in a Hindu temple. In these circumstances, it agreed with the counsel for the petitioners that the Sub Court had no reason to undertake a “roving enquiry” into the woman’s religion. Court added that since the marriage was performed according to Hindu rites, the couple would not be able to seek relief under the Special Marriage Act either, making the HMA the appropriate legal route.

Finding that the Sub Court had erred in dismissing the case based solely on the wife’s birth religion, the High Court restored the mutual-consent divorce petition and directed the Ambattur Sub Court to decide it on merits within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Case Title: Xxx vs. Yyy

Order Date: November 7, 2025

Bench: Justice P.B. Balaji